Do you long for the things of yesteryear
and by yesteryear I don’t mean our memories even of those of us who have a
little wear on our bodies. I mean yesteryear of the days when there was little
government regulation, there was no social safety net (i.e. social security,
medicare, etc); when bigotry was in, pre-union days, when the rich were really
rich and the rest of the country rode an economic roller coaster of wild ups
and downs in the economy? Or in other words, the 19th century in
this country.
Robert Reich properly make the differences
today about regressives and progressives rather than liberals versus
conservatives or Republicans versus Democrats. Lots of folk seem to want rush
back to yesteryear while other want to move forward into the future that deals
with major real issues such as global warming, improved education to make our
country more economically competitive, to make sure that it is a citizen’s
right to have basic health care and where the American Dream is possible once
again.
One of these dreams seem much more moral to
me than the other but you can decide that for yourself.
I'm not a "progressive", but I'm certainly not regressive.
ReplyDeleteI want to move forward and see bigotry, including that against race religion AND sexual preference, wane. This might not put me at odds with Reich but for the fact that I oppose ALL racism, including quotas which make the playing field less level.
I want to move forward to a time where union membership is the decision of each worker, and none are fired for refusing to join, and none are fired for union activism. After all, the concept of a "union job" makes as much sense as that of a "Catholic job". That is not 'no unions'. This puts me at odds with Reich, I know.
I believe in a social safety net and "a citizen’s right to have basic health care", which certainly does not require a Federal takeover of healthcare and government providing healthcare for those of means who can pay for it themselves. This puts me at odds with Reich, I know.
I believe in improving and expanding public education, using many options. These options include giving families children (especially the poorest) vouchers so they can afford superior education. It is regressive and reactionary to hold ineffective, outdated, high cost, low result models of public education as sacrosanct.
I believe in government regulation for safety and discrimination protection, but oppose so much of it which serves no purpose but to stifle the economy and serves no protective purpose at all (such as the state regulations banning insurance companies from competing across state lines)
I believe Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was one of the greatest Americans ever. I would guess that the real true regressives would be those who despised him.
There's been no 'Federal takeover' of healthcare no matter how much right-wing politicians say it, so let's put that strawman to rest right now. Heck there wasn't even a 'public option'.
DeleteRegarding banning insurance across state lines: it's not for 'no reason', it is because health insurance has typically been regulated at the state level, governing what sort of coverage policies 'must' have, etc. Buying across state lines may lose those protections for that state's citizens.
But there has been discussed some possibility of future compromise -- you would need to replace this state-by-state patchwork with a standardization at the federal level, or else have the state regs apply to sellers from out-of-state and there you have an unholy scenario of health insurers all trying to keep track of shifting regulations in all 50 states.
PK said: "There's been no 'Federal takeover' of healthcare no matter how much right-wing politicians say it"
DeleteI wasn't thinking of Obamacare, but instead in opposition to the common progressive goal of a single-payer government healthcare monopoly. Since the parent post was about progressives, it was relevant. And yes it is still their goal.
"so let's put that strawman to rest right now. Heck there wasn't even a 'public option'."
It is not a strawman, as this horrible idea is alive in the ill intent of some hardline people in Congress who really do want single-payer.
"Regarding banning insurance across state lines: it's not for 'no reason', it is because health insurance has typically been regulated at the state level, governing what sort of coverage policies 'must' have, etc. Buying across state lines may lose those protections for that state's citizens."
It actually is for no good reason. No good reason other than to block competition for businesses. This is one of those regulation situations that has nothing to do with protecting citizens. Because the regulatory barriers in these situations don't involve that at all.
Total strawman. Single payer was never even allowed to be part of the discussion, never got even a mention as a possibility in the serious reform discussions. The healthcare reform we got was more conservative than 'Romneycare', a package designed simply to preserve the existing system largely in its current state.
DeleteAs for its "horrible" status, tell that to the Canadians who consistently poll as being far more satisfied with their system than Americans are. I'm sure conservatives just assume that Canadians are incapable of realizing their own state of misery or something.
Moreover, besides being happier with their system, Canadian households are now on average richer than Americans. In Canada, with their socialist, communist, totalitarian healthcare.
Not a strawman at all.
Delete1) There are many in Congress who want single-payer.
2) Obama HIMSELF said that is preference was single-payer.
3) The "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party wants single-payer. This is the most important point, since the topic of the post is progressive vs regressive.
4) And, finally, with you supporting it by cherry-picking polls and such about something that is controversial among Canadians and causes many in Canada to seek care in the US because that is the only way to escape a government monopoly which has determined them or their loved ones expendible, you make it clear that you yourself support single payer.
The threat of destroying healthcare by turning it over to an unaccountable monopoly of the ruling elites (single payer) instead of letting the people control it, is a possibility and a dream of many "progressives", and not at all any sort of straw-man. And it would be quite probable, if, say, we elected a 70% majority of Democrats in Congress this fall.
Also on Canadians and healthcare, from the Vancouver Sun, showing very strong support among Canadians for reform that would move it from a system where the state made the decisions to one where the patients would.
DeleteConsidering "yesteryear of the days when there was little government regulation, there was no social safety net (i.e. social security, medicare, etc); when bigotry was in, pre-union days, when the rich were really rich and the rest of the country rode an economic roller coaster of wild ups and downs in the economy?" Those were the days. IMO a direct
ReplyDeletecause of the Great Depression.
One major direct cause of the Great Depression was a clampdown on free trade and imposition of tariffs. Thankfully, the legislators who support such catastrophic policies are in the minority now, and had no power to make the recent "Great Recession" into a full-blown depression.
ReplyDeleteActually tariffs were a minor player, as the primary causative factors were out-of-control money trusts and unsustainable wealth concentration giving rise to over-inflated asset bubbles and their eventual collapse.
DeleteFrom http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html:
ReplyDelete"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies (policies designed to improve one's own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations"